Talk:Death of Linda Norgrove/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

-- I look forward to reviewing this article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• First, fix the disambugation link (Kalashnikov is the disamb.) - then I will go section by section reviewing the article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Done --Errant ^(chat!) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Section-by-section review

Going through the article to make suggestions for changes.

Images

• Everything is fine. :-)

Lead

• I think the two paragraphs should be merged because the first one doesn't even get to the point of the article.
  • Reasonable point, I merged them together --Errant ^(chat!) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Background

• This section seems important to state but isn't really 'background' more like 'context'. Maybe mention it in later sections but it is certainly incomplete enough to stand on its own.

Linda Norgrove

• Good! No issues here.

Kidnapping

• First sentence is a run on. Maybe omit "Dewagal valley" to make it more succinct.
  • Fixed --Errant ^(chat!) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• You mention 'security forces'. Which one?
  • A bit difficult, the sources just say "security forces" without clarification. Any thoughts on alternative wording? --Errant ^(chat!) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmm...on second thought its fine. Lord Roem (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I really don't like it either - still thinking on it :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Negotiations

• Seems to omit the a) effect of... b) the end result of... the negotiations

Rescue attempt and killing

• Change 'shot dead' to 'killed'.
  • Done --Errant ^(chat!) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Norgrove's actual death is only briefly mentioned. Maybe describe what condition she was in on the helicopter, if sourced?
  • I added more detail about her death --Errant ^(chat!) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Great! Lord Roem (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent events

• Everything good here.

Reactions

• Good

Concluding thoughts

• There must be something added to the article to the effect of either 'Implications' or importance. The reader is left questioning why the incident matters and what effect it had on anything. The article is clearly notable, but I feel it must be explained in the article somewhere. Maybe in the 'Reactions section'?
• Beyond that, the article is well-written and is a viable candidate for GA-promotion.

Cheers, -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I didn't nom this article for GA status but I did work on it quite a bit. I've addressed some of the simpler points and hopefully the other article editors will be able to look into the others too :) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Errant. Seems you have so far made the needed edits. And thanks to Lord Roem for a good GA review so far.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just one more change. Please include something about the results of the negotiations and whether they failed (which I guess they did but it needs to be more explicit). Lord Roem (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had a dig through and there isn't really anything. One moment they were negotiating, the next minute it was reported there had been the rescue attempt and it kinda got forgotten :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Great article and interesting subject-matter.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Moving to promote

-- Lord Roem (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)